Water rights

(Hat tip: Brown and Caldwell newsletter)

The Bush Administration is said to be close to settling a water rights dispute between the Federal government and California farmers. The government wanted to divert water from farm use to preserve some endangered Chinook salmon. A federal court ruled that diverting water over which farmers owned the rights was essentially a "taking", and the farmers deserved to be paid for the use of that water. Indeed, since they had planted crops in anticipation of having a certain amount of water in reserve, they were owed damages for economic losses.

The government wants to protect the environment and endangered species. Historically, courts have ruled that protection of endangered species trumps contracts with State and Federal government agencies. Many in and out of the government would like this situation to continue. If they have to pay for what they take, it will have a serious impact on their decisions.

You know what? It should have a serious impact on their decisions. The United States government was established on a principle of protecting individual rights, and that has to include property rights. Government powers were limited and few, and enumerated in the Constitution, any powers not explicitly given to the Federal government belonged to the States, or to the people. In particular, a government power to step in and take private property for what it believes is a better use flies in the face of the spirit of the Constitution.

The government can still take property for what it sees as a more beneficial use, but the fact that it has to pay for that property means it has to be more judicious. It reduces any inclination to "take a flyer" on any proposed beneficial use, and makes it more likely that any diversion of property rights will yield a benefit that is large enough to be worth what the government has to pay to divert those rights.

---

There are four articles linked from the newsletter. Let's see how they cover the story:

Washington Post

• Lead paragraph states that a settlement could cost the government millions and make it more difficult to protect endangered species.
• Out of 16 paragraphs in the article, four argue for the ruling, six argue against it, two are mixed.
• There are three sources each quoted favoring and opposing the ruling. The supporters and opponents appear in the order: O,O,S,S,O,S.

Los Angeles Times

1. The Times emphasizes the expense the government would incur if this ruling is upheld.
2. Out of 21 paragraphs, two support the ruling, eleven oppose it, one is mixed, and the remaining 7 are neutral.
3. Out of seven spokescritters cited, one favors the ruling (the judge who made it), one is neutral, and the remaining five are cited in opposition.

The other two require registration or jumping through hoops I don't feel like right now.

I know there are people working for organizations that lobby for property rights who could have been consulted for a quote. Doesn't the LA Times have access to Google?